[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Windows 2000 and Cicsco router interoperability
> From: W. Mark Townsley [mailto:townsley@cisco.com]
> More than one proposal was presented for security, this was
> the one that
> was agreed upon at the time. Believe it or not, the the idea was to
> support IPsec in its efforts rather than duplicating security work
> within pppext. Too bad the reverse was not chapioned within
> IPsec early on (that is, letting IPsec rely upon pppext for remote
> access concerns).
IMO, L2TP hasn't really had much of a profile on the IPSEC WG at all.
I just looked looked back over the last 6 months and it is mostly yourself,
or another cisco employee championing it. Most of the discussion surrounded
the aftermath of Schneier's paper on IPSEC complexity. It cannot be said
that LT2P was received at all warmly by the group. I think it still looked
like a protocol of marginal interest to IPSEC by the time the discussion
fizzled out inconclusively (as seems to be the way with this WG).
This isn't to disparage L2TP itself, just a reflection on how the WG appears
to have valued its importance to IPSEC. Perhaps L2TP does merit a greater
place - and with cisco and ms backing it it probably will anyway! - but it
doesn't look like thats the way things have been heading with this group.
Chris